Was he testing how browsers handled the indicated code in response to a GET here?
If so, what do the 3xx results he shows mean? Without the methodology, this raises more questions than it answers.
Cheers,
On 01/12/2011, at 11:09 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> FYI -- see attached chart about browser behavior vs status codes...
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:03:37 +0000
> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
> To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
> CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Yehuda Katz
> <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
>
>
>
> Hi Yehuda\Mike\Juilan,
>
> Its good to get back to this issue, hope it keeps the traction this time :)
>
> Without going into too much detail yet, there were two points from the
> last discussions to be highlighted at this point.
>
> The first is with regards to browser handling of responses. I did some
> thorough testing of the current state of play of browser behaviour in
> this area and found that browsers are on the whole up to spec with their
> behaviour and that the default for content responses is to render
> whatever payload is returned. I have a matrix of these responses which
> can be added to any docs [attached].
>
> While performing the browser tests however, i started to doubt the
> necessity of such tests - perhaps this is a more methodological
> question, but is the html specification the place for defining http
> behaviour?
>
> The other issue is that specifications for PUT and DELETE are not too
> held back with conformance for current server implementations. As new
> functionality to html and hence requiring to be explicitly added by
> authors there should not be any backward compatibility to break.
>
> MIke, look forward to the updated docs.
>
> Thanks,
> Cameron Jones
>
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/